Your Humble Scribe

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

We license cars ... yackyackyack

I see that the gun grabbers have resurrected the old "We license cars, so why can't we license guns?" meme.I tell you what -- every time you hear a gun grabber snivel about licensing guns like cars, call him a liar to his face.I would absolutelyloveto license guns just like we do cars and drivers -- for the same reason that every gun grabber who suggests it is lying through his or her snaggle teeth.Think about it.We give a drivers license to every seventeen-year-old high school student who can pass a lowest-common-denominator Drivers Ed course. A course that can be successfully passed by a lobotomized chimpanzee.In a large percentage of cases, we give drivers licenses to 16 year-old kids who state that they have a particular hardship.Tell me, Mr or Ms. Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll give a gun license to every 17 year-old who wants one --just like a drivers license.You're a liar.Any person who possesses a drivers license can drive on any public road on any state in the Union. They can drive on school grounds, they can drive on college campuses, and they can drive to any courthouse in the Union.Tell me, Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let anyone with a gun license carry a gun anywhere they want to, in every State in the Union --just like a drivers license.You're a liar.

Drivers licenses issued by one State must be honoured by all other States. Anyone with a Texas Drivers License can drive any car he (or she) wants to, anywhere in New York City that he can fit. And the New York authorities don't have a thing to say about the matter.Tell me, Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let any 17 year-old cowboy from Bugscuffle, West Texas carry his gun anywhere he wants to in New York and tell the New York authorities they can't do anything about it --just like a drivers license.You're a liar.

If you get caught driving a car without your drivers license, you get a $90 traffic ticket that comes off your record in three years.

Tell me that you want to license guns just like cars. Tell me that if that Texas cowpoke is visiting Chicago, and gets caught carrying his gun without his license, he gets a traffic citation --just like a drivers license.

You're a liar.

No one must undergo a background check to get a license, any felon can get a drivers license, no mental checks are required for a drivers license.Tell me again that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let everyone -- 17 to 70, felons, no mental checks, pay your money, take your test, here's your gun license --just like a drivers license.You're a liar.If I'm on private property, I don't even need a driver license to drive any car I want to, the only limit to the number of cars I can possess is the size of my bank account, I can buy as many cars at once as my wallet can stand, and I can buy a car off a street corner in Compton today, another from a back-yard in New York tomorrow, I can import cars as many as a I want, from any country that I want, and I can sell or trade any or all of them to anyone I want -- and the Federal Government doesn't have word one to say about the matter.I build any car I want to -- with no Federal permission; I can modify, cut-down, trick-out, customize or skeletonize any car I want to without so much as a "Yes", "No", "Boo", "Kiss my arse" or "By your leave" from the Federal Government.

Tell me, Mr or Ms. Gun Control, that you really want to treat guns just like cars. Tell me that your "gun license" that is "just like we license cars" will let us treat guns just exactly like we treat cars.You are a damned liar.LawDog

BTW, we actually set a dangerous and historically incorrect precedent when the government declared the driving was a privilege and not a right but that's a discussion for another time. which leads to these horseshit arguments to begin with.

Were automobiles around in 1787 they would have no more been required to be licensed to drive on the roads as were horses back then nor would one have had to have state approval to operate one. The notion would have been considered offensive in the extreme.

"Mr. Washington you need a plates on that carriage and we'll have to take you in as you are operating it without a license." or can you imagine Samuel Adams getting tasered after mouthing off to the local constabulary about his horse not being registered with the state and further not agreeing to have his saddlebags rummaged through? he'd have probably said something along the lines of "...May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

I'm new to this blog thing, so please bear with me. Good post lawdog, I agree with you, and raise you one. In my state (Ok) when you go down to take your DL test, if you can't read/understand the test, the state employee will read it to you and help you understand the question, then when you have "passed" the test you get your DL. I sure don't want somebody like that getting a CCW. I hold a CCW and sure as fire don't want bonafide idiots carrying guns.

Also note that if you have a fender-bender or hit some black Ice in your car, you might have to pay a ticket and take a hit on your insurence (or pay out-of-pocket if your state doesn't require insurence)

So if gun licences were the same, If I had a ND (with no injuries) No problems...just fix the damages. If my coat blows open and exposes my CCW Peice, "No Harm no foul! Be More careful sir!"

Wayne LaPierre, of all folks, actually used that notion when he was debating Rod Wyden, a Socialist rep from Oregon, on a cable news show.

Wyden made the mistake of trotting out the "Car License" meme ... and Wyden was asked if he really wanted 17 year olds to be able to buy crew served weapons and use them on their parents back 40 without any paperwork.

A well reasoned argument on all points. Unfortunate isn't it, that those who would disagree are unlikely to be open minded enough to give it reasoned consideration. I will spare you the obvious reminders about what just one person capable of armed self defense might could have accomplished. The education establishment wanted "gun control" on the campus. They got it.

I wouldn't mind in the least. At my school, and as I would guess, most across the county, there is no student willing to shoot another, due to the legal consequences of murder. My school gives parking passes to students to park vehicles on school property, the only requirement for which is a valid driver's license and a description of the vehicle. Maybe I'm nuts, but I would carry a gun license on me if it let me carry a firearm like a free man.

The buzzards are out on the Virginia Tech incident. As I understand the Idiot that perpetrated the crime left video tapes referring to the Columbine shooting. The news media goes on a feeding frenzy when something like this happens, and the doer's name is on the air for weeks. This only gives any crazy that wants to kill himself and become famous incentive to copy cat this type of crime. The news media knows this and don't give a rat's behind. All they want is air time that makes them important? and famous. I am deeply disappointed in O'Rielly. I thought he was above that kind of thing, but there he was last night right in the thick of the ghoul squad. If the shooter's name was never mentioned and the media focused on the victims only I think there would be less incidents like it.

Excellent post, as was expected.Just sent an email to the Denver NBC outlet - when they mentioned Columbine tonight, they included the pictures and names of the two killers. Told them to stop doing this, as it legitimizes the bastards; they wanted to be idolized and imortalized, and the Denver media is doing it. OldeForceAnd we're praying for Nana.

Why would you be surprised cop-out? Oreilly is an cheap populist big government nannyist of the highest order. He's all for government intrusiveness and gun control. Oh he blathers about being pro second amendment and such but when he's pressed on the issue he really isn't. He's for gun bans, registration of owners and weapons and magazine restrictions etc. He'll also hop onto any sort of tragedy if he can get some sort of mileage out of it. He'll milk this for years just like he has the whole stranger danger hysteria. The loofa boy a cheap populist huckster who tosses just enough red meat out to conservatives to keep them watching and fooled. He's good at it. Very good.

There is nothing brilliant about taking two disparate societal functions and then demonstrating they are not the same. Hell, the song "One thing is not like the other one..." from Sesame Street was running through my brain the whole time I read what amounted to a waste of time.

Yes. You are correct. Gun licensing and driver's licenses are two completely different things. You get a gold star and ten minutes extra at recess to try and learn to tie your shoes for that little entourage of low IQ verbiage...

It still doesn't change the fact that some nutter went into a gun shop, slapped down his credit card, loaded himself up and went on a killing spree...

I remember my days in the NRA, sitting there amongst men who schemed and connived and politicized, trying to figure out all the little things they could do or say to "win" the gun control argument.

Not once did the conversation head off into such discourse as "What might be best for society at large?"

It was always about "How can I keep "them" from taking away my "God given" right to own a gun!?"

I find that sad, really. In my personal family, a gun has never saved a life. Guns have taken the lives of distant direct or indirect family members and friends, though. Through accident and carelessness and criminality and internal strife between two people, I've seen guns in action.

A gun is a tool deisgned to rip flesh and maim and kill. It has no other function. (Target shooting is really about learning how to "practice" maiming and killing, so don't even...)

And a gun's untoward use and consequences are so severe (we had a sitting president speak at a memorial because of the effects of two guns-- TWO! AND ONE A .22!) that as a society, we owe it to ourselves to come to some resolution on how gun malice and depravity can be subdued. (I say subdued because there will never be a day when guns aren't killing people.)

The gun banning fanatics just want all guns removed from society, and this would of course solve the problem. Trouble is, the problem is already the proverbial cat out of the proverbial bag.

So the gun nutters yell and scream and want to arm everybody. Unregulated gun ownership! Guns in schools! This will stop the nutters from... uh... possessing a gun and killing people? Really?

I could turn this into one of those manifestos that nobody reads unless I kill a bunch of people, so I think I'll cut it short.

Guns kill people. That's one of their functions. A small percentage of people do nefarious things with guns, meaning kill people, like the gun was intended.

Lots of good people carry guns and don't kill people. In fact, they look pretty silly walking around the grocery store trying to buy frozen corn, and not all that comfortable.

Somewhere amidst all of this bravado and stupidity (Stir up a nutter and what'll you get? Mixed nuts) there are concrete things we as a society can DO to reduce the detrimental effects of flesh tearing bullets.

Now I don't know about you nutters who think a "God" grants gun ownership rights, but I am sure there are some reasonable people who can drop all of the horseshit that has plagued (and hindered) this discussion for the last thirty years who would be willing to come up with some solutions to the basic problem that the US has relating to death by firearm. I mean, we're smart. Why are we leading the western world in this category? Why can't it be the bloody frogs?

scott from oregon would have us all use the "Safe, Non-Violent, Limp (SNiVeL) Technique" for self defense. Developed by Josh Suckerman.

Assume a safe (S) fetal position, preferably under a table or other cover, while remaining non-violent (NV). Moves that could be interpreted as "self-defense" might only serve to further provoke your assailant. Offer no resistance.

Become limp (L) while begging and groveling for your life. This is no time for pride or courage, so cry like a girl! This will always serve better than a firearm, which would only inject more violence into the situation. Stay limp until your assailant has finished beating you like a rented mule. He will eventually tire from pummeling you mercilessly and move on to a more entertaining endeavor, such as beating your children.

Cars are registered, and must be regularly inspected for safety.Drivers are licensed, and must demonstrate some competence.A driver must demonstrate financial responsibility for damages he might cause in his car, by buying insurance.

Anyone arguing for treating guns like cars is arguing for shooters licensing and gun registration and inspections and proof of financial responsibility. You can't take just a fraction of the proposal and beat it to death - not in an honest discussion, anyway.

I think guns-as-cars works because insurance companies won't write policies for crazies, for fear of financial ruin.

If you want to argue with this, try a thorough and mature argument next time.

Not in my state. Your mileage may vary. Aren't those auto inspection stations more a handout to the operators than a safety requirement? Also, a registration isn't required if the vehicle never leaves private property.

"Drivers are licensed, and must demonstrate some competence."

Yeah. And the level of competence demonstrated by a 16 year old newby driver versus that of a firearms enthusiast proves what, exactly?

"A driver must demonstrate financial responsibility for damages he might cause in his car, by buying insurance."

So you are saying that if I have insurance, I needn't face criminal charges if I negligently shoot someone?

"Anyone arguing for treating guns like cars is arguing for shooters licensing and gun registration and inspections and proof of financial responsibility. You can't take just a fraction of the proposal and beat it to death - not in an honest discussion, anyway."

Ah, no. Inspections are neither universally mandated nor required. You take one test for your license, and thats' it. Forever after the only competence you must demonstrate is in paying for a renewal.

And what happens if you don't register your car? It's a $90 citation -- if you don't get a warning. Same with the inspection.

Drivers are licensed, and must demonstrate some competence.

Once. Usually by a nervous teenager with four hours of Drivers Ed behind him. Drivers Education -- your "competence" -- is offered to every high school student in every school in this land.

A driver must demonstrate financial responsibility for damages he might cause in his car, by buying insurance.

Or by filing a bond with the State Treasurer. But if a driver gets caught driving without insurance -- it's a citation.

Anyone arguing for treating guns like cars is arguing for shooters licensing and gun registration and inspections and proof of financial responsibility.

None of which is required for cars which don't leave private property. So, you're arguing that if I don't intend to take my guns off of private property, you won't require licensing and all that jazz?

Plus, violating all of the things you mentioned nets you a ticket if you get caught, and if the officer wishes to cite you. So, you're arguing that violating all of the above with guns would just be citations or warnings?

You can't take just a fraction of the proposal and beat it to death - not in an honest discussion, anyway.

If one part of your hypothesis is invalid, all of your hypothesis is invalid. That's pretty much one of the basic laws of logic -- so, yes, I can take a part of your proposal and beat it to death.

I think guns-as-cars works because insurance companies won't write policies for crazies, for fear of financial ruin.

Since insurance companies aren't necessary to show proof of financial responsibility -- so what? File a bond with the State Treasurer -- or go without and risk getting a citation.

If you want to argue with this, try a thorough and mature argument next time.

We've been arguing you gun grabbers in a mature and polite fashion since 1968 -- and what has our maturity and politeness gotten us? A useless Assault Weapons Ban; a Brady Law which no one ever arrests for violating; stupid import bans; so on and so forth.

We have been arguing with courtesy and civility while your side shrieks, wails, calls our side murderers, berates our people on national TeeVee and relies on emotional outbursts to make points rather than logic -- and what has our courtesy and civility gotten us? Losses.

Bugger that. Insults seem to work for y'all, so by God I'm taking a page from y'alls playbook.

Your argument, then, is that laws that are violated should not be laws. You would abandon licensing of drivers and registraion of cars and insurance requirements because they don't always work. A society without regulation of cars and driving would be no worse than society today, you suggest.

I think that all hell would break loose on the roads, but you have a sunnier view of human nature. Good for you. I wonder, though, what laws you do support? Laws against theft or assault? Not if your standard is "if it doesn't work *always*, it's not a law worth having."

Could you have missed the point any further if you had tried deliberately? Or are you deliberately missing the point?Seriously.

Once more from the top:

Gun-grabbers say, "We license cars, why can't we license guns?"

I say, "Fine, here's how we license cars, these are the penalties involved, and these are the conditions. Let us do what you say and license guns the same way."

I then point out that if we were to license guns the same as cars -- the way the gun-grabbers say they want to do, it would be a $90 ticket to get caught carrying a gun without your license, that every child would be given training and offered a license in high school, so on and so forth.

And you come back asking, "What laws do you support?"

*blink, blink*

Have you even read what I posted? Or did you read the first sentence and leap to conclusions? Did someone e-mail you Cliff Notes or something?

You say let's license guns like cars. Fine, let us license guns like cars. Let us keep the same kind of licensing, and let us keep the same kind of penalties for guns as we do cars.

"And a gun's untoward use and consequences are so severe (we had a sitting president speak at a memorial because of the effects of two guns-- TWO! AND ONE A .22!) that as a society, we owe it to ourselves to come to some resolution on how gun malice and depravity can be subdued. (I say subdued because there will never be a day when guns aren't killing people.)"

Yes, guns kill people every day, as do cars, swimming pools, monkey wrenches, ropes, and rape-victim pantyhose. (Cars and swimming pools, indeed, cause far more deaths each day than guns do.)

"Guns kill people. That's one of their functions. A small percentage of people do nefarious things with guns, meaning kill people, like the gun was intended."

And yes, guns kill people. That is their function. But there are times when it is appropriate to kill people: when the safety of your life and others are threatened.

Are we really willing to believe that killing the Virginia Tech gunman as soon as possible would have been a bad thing? Or a burgler with a knife, or a kidnapper or rapist? I would say yes, but not as bad as letting these people have their way!

We *do* need to come to terms with guns: we need to appreciate their value for self defense, and treat them accordingly. We need to be well-trained in their use and safety as well.

"So the gun nutters yell and scream and want to arm everybody. Unregulated gun ownership! Guns in schools! This will stop the nutters from... uh... possessing a gun and killing people? Really? "

Quite the contrary. The more of these incidents that take place the more everyone with an ounce of IQ is starting to see that there is almost no way to preserve even the most minuscule aspects of liberty and still prevent psychotics from obtaining weapons of destruction. Furthermore, guns, even in the hands of well trained individuals, are not effective weapons for killing large numbers of people. Prior to 9/11 the single largest mass murder in NYC history was carried out with a plastic can found in an alley, ten dollars of gasoline and a match. Look up the happyland fire. Anyone that strikes out to kill as many people as possible with a gun is not just crazy, they are too stupid to choose an appropriate tool.

The saying that you can't legislate away crazy has never been more true than it is in the world today. But some people just need to say or do SOMETHING even if it is totally without reason and prevents honest people from defending themselves against criminals that the law cannot.

Exactly no one has suggested: "Let's take the laws about licensing cars, replace all instances of the word 'car' and replace it with 'gun' and then pass that new law.

That is obviously idiotic.

When someone says "Guns should be licensed like cars are," what they are saying is, "Cars are an example of an item that requires a license. Let's also require a specialized license for guns in a way that resembles but does not exactly mimic car licenses."

The proper and immediate remedy for a crazy guy with a gun is one or more sane guy(s) with a gun.

The proper and immediate remedy for a criminal with a gun is one or more law abiding guy(s) with gun(s).

Licenses don't stop crazy, nor criminal. Sane and honest people stop them, and can quickly escalate to deadly force if necessary, if they have a gun. That is why anyone who advocates licenses for owning guns is a liar.

In the absence of guns, sane honest people have a substantial disadvantage compared to a crazy person, or a criminal. That is why anyone who advocates restrictions on the ability of honest sane people to own and carry guns is a liar.

There is another thing, LD, though you may have considered then declined to include it for one reason or another.

The other thing about gun licensing like car licensing is that if you meet the (minimal, as you note) requirements, you get the card as fast as the card machine can make it, and the clerk can't say anything about it beyond "have a nice day". Nowhere in any legislation or regulation about driver licensing I've heard of (which admittedly isn't an all-inclusive list) is the phrase "may issue" to be found.

No slow-walking the application for a de facto ban (*cough*Illinois*cough*), no clerk deciding that even though you meet the stated requirements they won't issue the license because Reasons[tm], and no refusing to license anyone who isn't rich, famous, or politically connected (see CCW in many leftist enclaves, f'rex).